Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Feb-18-1998
Reported in : 1998(2)WLC558; 1998(1)WLN164
..... reason for so doing. simultaneously, another application came to be filed by the appellant before the trial court with reference to sections 56 and 57 of the indian evidence act read with section 151 cpc on 5.5.1989. notwithstanding the above, the aforesaid applications were rejected by the first appellate court vide its impugned judgment & ..... court has thus obviously committed material irregularity when having declined to entertain the aforesaid applications of the defendant-appellant moved under order 41 rule 27 cpc, for amendment of the written-statement sought by the defendant-appellant under order 6 rule 17 cpc and the application moved under order 10 rules 1 & 2 cpc and ..... hearing on 11.3.1993 and framed the following substantial question of law:whether the lower appellate court had erred in law in rejecting the application for amendment of the written statement under order 6 rule 17 cpc and consequently declined the prayer of the appellant to lead additional evidence in respect of the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Feb-03-1998
Reported in : AIR1998Raj100; 1998(1)WLC725; 1998(1)WLN131
..... 29 and 55 of the banking regulation act of 19,49 have been substituted obviously for 'the limited purpose of the application of the provisions to the ..... and to the extent as mentioned in part v which was added vide act no. 23 of the act of 1965. the purpose of adding part v by the amendment act no. 23 of 1965 was only to bring co-operative banks under the banking regulation act of 1949 for the purpose of 'regulating banking business to the extent specified ..... in relation to, banking companies subject to the following modifications, namely : (a) throughout this act, unless the context otherwise, requires,--(i) reference to a 'banking company' or 'the company' or 'such company' shall be construed as references to a co-operative bank,' by the aforesaid amending act no. 23 of 1965, sections 5a, 7, 11, 18, 19, 20, 24a, .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jan-29-1998
Reported in : II(1998)DMC118
..... , which was held to be admissible in evidence under section 32 of the evidence act.23. we have given our anxious and thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions section 304b, ipc has been inserted by the dowry prohibition amendment act, 1986 with a view to combating the increased menace of dowry deaths. this section ..... death. the explanation appended to section 304b, ipc, lays down that for the purpose of sub- section (1) 'dowry' shall have the same meaning as in section 2 of the dowry prohibition act, 1961. by the aforesaid amendment act, section 113b has been inserted in the evidence act. it deals with the presumption as to ..... correctly discussed, analysed and scanned statements of prosecution witnesses on this score and committed patent illegality in convicting the appellants for the offence under section 304b, ipc.14. we shall now closely and critically scrutinise the prosecution evidence regarding the alleged cruelty or harassment perpetrated to smt. beena by the appellants 'soon .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jan-16-1998
Reported in : AIR1999Raj22; 1999(2)WLC218; 1998(1)WLN88
..... and there was also knowledge of institution and pendency of the suit to the defendant and, lastly, the finding of the learned appellate judge that the amendment by way of addition of second proviso to rule 13 of order 9, cpc by amendment act 1976 could not be applied to the case in hand since the original suit was already pending when the ..... amendment came into force and hence no retrospective effect could be given to the newly added provision of rule 13 of order 9, cpc. 8. however, the learned ..... second proviso to rule 13 of order 9, cpc could not be applied to the proceedings of the suit which were already pending at the time of insertion of the amendment as such. 20. the learned counsel for the petitioners has also relied on the ratio of decision rendered in murarilal v. state of m.p. air 1980 sc 531 : (1980 .....
Tag this Judgment!